December 16, 2011

The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide

This is an uncensored, politically-incorrect Christian voters guide.

If you are a liberal, hedonist atheist you can read this also. Actually, I hope you do because I believe the US is in such critical condition politically that practically everyone should recognize that survival is better than non-survival, and there is only one candidate seriously addressing the deeper issues that need to be addressed. This presidential election may literally be 'the last chance to save America' politically. The mainstream media has been so biased in their portrayal of the 2012 presidential candidates that it has been food for fodder for Jon Stewart who has been a beacon of honest journalism, albeit humorous and entertaining journalism, as shown in the linked video clips:

globalist - Motivated towards replacing US sovereignty with global governance.neoconservative - Presented as a conservative, but does not really represent traditional and fundamental conservative political values.paleoconservative -Supports civil liberties and the Constitution, as well as other traditional and fundamental political values.sock puppet - Will serve special interest groups over citizens, including bankers and other lobbyists.cult member - Is presently in a cult or has not renounced past cult involvement.flip-flopper - Tends to blatantly change opinions, smacking of dishonesty.

President Barack Obama - He won his presidential election with a promise of "change" but has basically been furthering the same globalist, neoconservative, sock puppet agenda of the Bush administration. His latest acts are so blatantly anti-civil liberties that his liberal followers are still reeling in a state of shock. Jaws dropped when President Obama stood before the historical U.S. Constitution and declared he would circumvent the U.S. Constitution and legalize indefinite detention without a trial (nullifying habeas corpus).[1] But then to affirm his support for the blatantly anti-civil liberty National Defense Authorization Act (NDA Act), which he had said he would veto, on December 15, the very day the historic Bill of Rights was first approved (December 15 1791) lies beyond political moral reprehension.[2] The ambiguous language in this law creates a loop hole allowing for a subjective definition of 'terrorist' to be applied to any US citizen on US soil which trumps any personal civil rights. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, stated “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."[3] This law is reminiscent of the 1936 "Gestapo Law"which authorized Nazis to sweep anyone (Jews or otherwise) up off the street without a legal trial and ship them off to concentration camps. This law began the time-line of the Holocaust.[4] As an added bonus the new US NDA law authorizes additional secret torture methods, in addition to the standard water-boarding that was outlawed in 2005.

Ron Paul - He is a paleoconservative who sees the need to restore basic habeas corpus rights (the right to a legal trial) as a top priority. How can you not agree this is an important issue? After the adoption of NDA Act, we will essentially be living in a police state. If you are happy with that, then vote for someone else. The other candidates are basically silent on this issue. Paul is against torture and he's for the sovereignty of the United States.[5] He's against the entrenched corruption in the US and therefore a lot of money is being spent to oppose him. Most of the special interest money (Goldman Sachs, etc.) is going to Mitt Romney, which should tell you something. Paul has been married to his wife for over 50 years, which shows he knows what commitment means and he knows how to keep a promise.[6] Paul has been criticized for not being outspoken about his Christian faith. But Jesus showed that actions speak louder than words in Matthew 7. "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."(Matt. 7.16-17, NIV). Paul has been criticized for not supporting a preemptive strike on Iran. But this may be wise considering a recent statement by Major General Zhang Zhaozhong of China who recently said, “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War.”[7] This attitude is endorsed by Russia as well.

Mitt Romney - His main trait seems to be flip-flopping on many of his statements. There are so many flip-flops there is a website dedicated to just that, Mitt Romney Flip-flops.com.[8] This is a bad sign for a number of reasons. It means he is a politician's politician willing to say anything at anytime to please anyone. Though he is generally non-committal on important issues, Romney has recast himself as a neoconservative supporting the recent preemptive wars of aggression[9] who does not view water-boarding as torture.[10] This is quite a contrast from his 2002 campaign wherein he stated, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone that is moderate, and my views are progressive.”[11] The hefty lobbying he receives from bankers[12] plus his flip-flopping ways together reveal that the major monetary corruption in government probably won't be addressed. He claims to be a morally clean, 'non-smelly' sock-puppet, but do we really need a pretty-faced, smooth talking Ken-doll Republican sock-puppet at this juncture? The US is on its death bed and needs to be immediately resuscitated. Lastly, Mitt is a Mormon, which is technically not classified as a Christian denomination. So he's basically a cult member. But that seems to be the smallest concern.

Newt Gingrich - In contrast to Mitt, Newt is a fairly smelly sock-puppet. It seems the only reason he is running is to make Mitt Romney look good by comparison. Newt is cut from the same cloth as the Bush family. He pretends to be a Christian family man with traditional conservative values but, in reality, his track record shows otherwise. He's a globalist (currently listed on the CFR membership page), neoconservative with a lot of blatant moral issues. His three marriages have been undermined by a history of admitted sexual, extra-marital affairs.[13] In 1997, as Speaker of the House he was fined the largest penalty in its history, $300,000. for ethics violations.[14] Newt is a bit of a religious chameleon. He was raised in a Lutheran family but he later chose to be baptized as a Southern Baptist. Then, after 40 years, he chose to become a Catholic.[15] And, to top it off, Gingrich has been featured in the pagan Bohemian Grove annual yearbook and has given speeches there as well.[16] When questioned on this subject by We are Change journalist Luke Rudkowski, Gingrich had no words to say.[17] A newt is a little reptilian amphibian that changes colors with its surroundings when it's not hiding under a rock. If you'd like a newt for president, vote for Newt.
Michelle Bachmann - She is very outspoken about her Christian beliefs and their implications. But, unfortunately, this does not make for a very successful candidate in our post-Christian environment. Bachmann endorses water-boarding and so will likely have no problem with the additional, secret torture methods now authorized in the new NDA Act. She also endorses preemptive, unprovoked and unlimited wars of aggression. When a politician is presented as a 'Christian neoconservative' then there seems to be one of two possibilities. Either there is intentional deception or a gullible naiveté. In Bachmann's case it seems to be the latter. She represents the mindset of many Christians today who haven't come to terms with the fact that Bush, Cheney and their cabinet were serious law breakers that Obama should have investigated.[18] The Christian Necon Quiz posted in this article will hopefully help Christians to see that neocon values are extra-biblical and have nothing in common with true Christianity. The actions promoted are actually anti-Christian in nature. As the Bush-light candidate, there is not much hope in her for serious reform. Conservapedia has defined Bachmann as a "movement conservative", meaning that she "supports all or nearly all conservative principles with a coherent philosophy."[19] Others listed as movement conservatives are the Apostle Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher. While it may seem altruistic to group politicians and pundits together with the Apostle Paul, somehow I don't believe the paleoconservative Paul the Apostle would be in favor of water-boarding, indefinite detention without a trial and preemptive wars of aggression. Based on his own letters, Paul affirmed the value of basic civil liberties as a Roman citizen, the importance of which Bachmann and other neoconservatives don't seem to grasp. "And Paul said, But I was free born...Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." (Acts 22:22-29 KJV). While it may be admirable to support the people of Israel when they face unfair criticism, on the other hand it doesn't help to make unfounded statements, such as this one: "We know without a shadow of a doubt Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map. And they've stated that they will use it against the United States of America."[20] Bachmann is not careful in her thinking, in her research and in her words.

Final thoughts

Even if you are a liberal, hedonist, Christian-hating atheist, hopefully you will be able to see that if we don't have basic civil rights, then we don't have much at all. When the Occupy Wall Street protesters peacefully exercised their rights of free speech and civil disobedience the government called out the Department of Homeland Security, with policies linked to the 'Patriot Act' supposedly for terrorist threats, to help crack-down on innocent civilians. It was the police, not the protesters, who exercised unnecessary and brutal violence.[21]

Christians sometimes stay out of politics because they believe it is 'non-spiritual,' but John Bunyan offered some good advice:

"You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you cannot do more than pray until you have prayed."

Ron Paul is the only candidate seriously defending the most essential civil-rights issues, which are the main 2012 election issues. Therefore, he has widespread bipartisan, grass-roots support from a wide variety of conscientious activists. He's the best Christian candidate and the best candidate over all for 2012. If you agree, pass this Christian voters guide along to a friend. If it's not too late, register to vote as a Republican in the primary election in your state. If Paul does not make it through the primaries, America has no chance for political resuscitation.

21 comments:

Congratulation, Rick. You have proven once again that you have no interest whatsoever in looking for truth. Since you do not deem necessary to pay attention to your opponent, I am withdrawing from the debate. Do not blame anyone for refusing to debate you, the reasons were pointed out in the beginning of December (if you do not remember them, it is your own fault for deleting the post). You can enjoy yourself in solitude.

You are correct in that I am not interested in "looking for truth" in the sense you mean, because the central truth I have found is overwhelmingly satisfying, logical and meaningful in comparison to what passes for common acceptable world views today.

In the beginning of December, you and Havok made off-topic personal attacks claiming I did not answer relevant, cogent points to apologetic proofs of God's existence.

A list of some of the more blatant attacks and slander are at the following link at the following date.

Finally, you are showing your true colors. If you are completely closed-minded, do not even try to start a debate. You are not even able to follow through a single debate point, mostly irrelevant to your core belief.

Though, I applaud you for putting down the hypocritical message in the right upper corner of your blog, concerning your hypothetical quest for truth. The only thing left to do, would be to put down your assertion that your articles were unchallenged.

"If you are completely closed-minded, do not even try to start a debate."

- I refine my understanding as I debate but I m not looking for an overall new truth about life because I now realize what that central truth is.

I presented a logical proof, "How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence", and I've challenged the top 20 atheist bloggers to find a fault with it and not one athiest has been able to point out one cogent challenge.

"The only thing left to do, would be to put down your assertion that your articles were unchallenged."

- If you notice, I didn't write there were no challenges, I wrote there were no effective challenges.

Please point out to me the date of a cogent challenge to the article and proof I just mentioned that I have not adequately answered.

Jumping from one topic to another... I would like to remind you that you never even presented a case for the existence of objective morality and when I pressed you about it, you said we should first settle the issue of the "flip-flop". When driven into a corner, you just ignore your opponent.

I also have posted a big answer to your "proof" of God s existence, which you chose to ignore. I have also explained to you why top-atheistic blogs ignored you. But I am no longer interested in any debate with you, if you unable to follow through to the end even a single point.

I would like to remind you that you never even presented a case for the existence of objective morality..."

I had written that I wanted to resolve the question about Dawkins you had first. This question seemed extremely important to you. I don't see that as being driven into a corner.

"I also have posted a big answer to your "proof" of God s existence, which you chose to ignore."

- I have no idea what you are referring to. If you offered a date of when you posted your argument it would be helpful.

"But I am no longer interested in any debate with you, if you unable to follow through to the end even a single point."

- That's fine. As I wrote, you are free to do whatever you want to. But, just for the record, you have not posed a reference to a single specific dated comment that I was unable to adequately answer regarding the logical proofs I have published.

R:But, just for the record, you have not posed a reference to a single specific dated comment that I was unable to adequately answer regarding the logical proofs I have published.

You still failed to address the issue of the "flip-flop". You just dropped out since you were "not interested" in continuing. You failed to prove that Darwin was a racist, you provided a incomplete definition of racism (accepting only the part advantages to you), you distorted countless times the idea of evolution (no matter how often I had to correct you)and when you were out of arguments - you just dropped out. Dropping out is not considered an adequate answer.

Concerning other arguments from your opponents - you just ignored them or just dropped out in the middle. The list would be to long to provide.

R:I have no idea what you are referring to.

Each time you offer your defective memory as an excuse. But just to show you once again that you are a hypocrite - open the comments of your "logic" article and look up the comments at the end. The 3rd from the bottom or something like that. Do not mistaken though, I have no intention of debating a person incapable of following till the end even a single small point

I am referring to a matter important to me. I do not like when others are being insulted on no grounds whatsoever and you did it multiple times, claiming it was "funny". You have also failed multiple times to provide a solid case for the existence of objective morality (even if people asked you to do so a number of times), you have only been attacking others in a futile attempt do discredit your opponent.

R:That would be about comment #230 that Havok had written after I had asked an apology...

Are you talking about "How-identity-logic-and-physics-prove..." or you also have issues with arithmetics?

- A lot of Christians have been brainwashed by the mainstream media into believing that torture is good, indefinite detention without a trial is acceptable and unjustified, indefinite wars of aggression are desirable. My article is an attempt to help Christians use critical thinking in order to evaluate their beliefs about the political situation today.

"Truth is Rick...no one gets to run and win who will not play the game. So spare me."

- "Historical examples such as "Honest Abe" show that honesty in government is possible...

Christian Anonymous here Rick,This is just reaffirming what I had felt was true but was slowly becoming blind to it.Obama wants to destroy usRomney wants to enslave us to Big BrotherRon Paul is someone I feel is the 3rd coming of a spirit of Freedom. I hope he gets elected and this nightmare mess can be cleaned up for a few more years of righteousness and justice in America before it all comes to a close

Unfortunately, There is very little chance of Ron Paul being elected at this time. The mainstream media whores only support status-quot sock puppets and the there was documented voting fraud in the republican primary. They corrupt establishment realized they had to keep Paul out or there would be real change.

Voting fraud was documented in a series of states aimed against Ron Paul"

Good ρost. I lеarn something totаllу new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon οn a ԁaily basiѕ.Іt wіll alωays be іnteresting to reaԁ contеnt from other writerѕ and practice ѕomething from other webѕites.

What і ԁon't understood is if truth be told how you are not actually a lot more neatly-favored than you may be right now. You are very intelligent. You realize therefore significantly in terms of this topic, made me for my part believe it from a lot of numerous angles. Its like women and men don't ѕeеm tο bе intеrested unless it's one thing to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your personal stuffs outstanding. Always maintain it up!

Although it is often mistaken for obesity, cellulite is not actually obesity related because it can also take place in thin lean women. Water, suction, laser, massage and now there is the electric muscle inspiration.There may be a new and innovative cellulite treatment available now:cryotherapy.

Smartlipo laser assisted liposuction melts those stubborn pockets of fat and tightens the skin.There are cellulite creams made with natural ingredients that stimulate the skin and reduce water retention beneath the skin.Also, if you are being treated by a physician for any type of medical condition,it is important to let the office know.